Does Radenso Theia support X Band?

Radenso Theia should eliminate detection of X-band police radars in its specifications.

  • Yes

  • No

  • Undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,781
Reaction score
22,893
Location
Hill Country, TX
The roughly 21 million inhabitants of NJ and OH might disagree. They frequently face X.
Don't be misled by mis-information.
Indeed. Some face X, and as I said a relative handful face X frequently. Many more than that number would still like X “just in case” in any detector they run. Theia will have X.

I will not be surprised when someone does one day finally eliminate X from their detectors to reap the advantages of being simpler, cheaper, smaller, faster, more sensitive, all combined, no matter how loudly one CM investor will yell about it.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
527
Reaction score
729
It is very easy to talk yourself into this train of thought. Multimillion dollar ESM installations in military application still false. Period. They are getting better, and they false less often, but they still do false.
You read way too much into my post. What I was saying is that if a multimillion dollar military system can occasionally false, a thousand dollar non-milspec system can't be expected to be 100 percent false-free. An occasional false on a radar detector means you slow down for a minute where you otherwise might not, nothing more. Constant falsing is far more dangerous than a very occasional false.
Me also. If Radenso can deliver no BSM falses (and I think that likely) and almost no CW signal falses, that is a huge win from my point of view.

T!
That's my main thing. I don't care if it occasionally falses, so long as I don't pick up every single Audi, Hyundai, Tahoe, or Mazda with rearward looking radar systems. Even if a new version gets through that the firmware can learn to ignore, not alerting to the well-known systems is what I want to see with this. That alone eliminates 90 percent of the falses I have to deal with, making the detector's live alerts much more likely to be real. Before those stupid nanny systems became common, radar detectors were pretty reliable and rarely falsed, and that's what I want back.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,781
Reaction score
22,893
Location
Hill Country, TX
You read way too much into my post. What I was saying is that if a multimillion dollar military system can occasionally false, a thousand dollar non-milspec system can't be expected to be 100 percent false-free.
I think what he was saying is that it’s not a valid comparison. It’s not that a multimillion dollar military system can’t avoid falses. It’s that the operator t conditions are such that the comparison is unreasonable.
 

MASI

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
461
Reaction score
1,052
Location
UTAH
What I was saying is that if a multimillion dollar military system can occasionally false, a thousand dollar non-milspec system can't be expected to be 100 percent false-free.

Exactly.
Its naïve to think that any RD manufacturer can produce a product with zero falses and still reliably alert you to all threats. Be wary of any manufacturer's (or fanboy) claims of zero falses. Its just not realistic. Especially given the huge numbers and types of K and Ka signal sources already out there.
 
Last edited:

elantra04

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
940
Reaction score
1,348
To be fair, all of this back and forth of what Theia will and will not detect seems like a giant time waste until we are shown a working prototype in use in the real world. How many cumulative hours have been spent debating something that may not ever make it to market. I’m obviously also guilty of spending time on this topic but I’ve started to curtail wasting anymore time discussing something until I see proof of progress in the development.
 

biolink

Corgi Lovers
Intermediate User
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
933
Reaction score
2,998
If the signal eventually turns out to be a non-threat, or you never achieve 100% certainty, was that modified alert now a false?

T!
If I believed this to be true, I'd have to abandon a great feature of my daily RD. A modified alert with newly gained details seems like a good idea.

@Jon at Radenso forgive me if I've missed this in the volumes of discussions, would you consider a qualified alert which is later kicked out?
 

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
15,781
Reaction score
22,893
Location
Hill Country, TX
Its naïve to think that any RD manufacturer can produce a product with zero falses and still reliably alert you to all threats. Be wary of any manufacturer's (or fanboy) claims of zero falses. Its just not realistic.
We’ll see. I bet we can get pretty close. The problem is that you’re taking zero risk with your stance. If they hit it out of the park, at most it costs you a “good job” (and even then no one will care), and if they don’t quite get there you can strut around pretending you were right all along. It’s always easier to sit back in your armchair tell everyone else it can’t be done.
 
Last edited:

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Lifetime Premium
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
6,425
Reaction score
15,362
Location
The Tail Lights Pulling Away From You
Even if a new version gets through that the firmware can learn to ignore, not alerting to the well-known systems is what I want to see with this.
Your looking at it backwards.
A new version of what??? It’s not looking for different BSM emitters.

RAI is trained to look for legitimate signatures of radar guns used for enforcement. The rest is just noise.

I did post the link to the NHSTA website which lists what guns and Lidar are acceptable for law enforcement use.


Any new guns will be known well before they are approved. It takes a while to get it approved. Any new guns shouldn’t take more than a day for RAI to be trained on it…. and an update pushed out.

I’m sure you’ll have your choice of what you’ll want Theia to alert to. Might not be immediately out of the box, but between Radenso, and 3rd party app developers…. You’ll be able to pick.

Who knows…. Maybe with the chip shortage…. They’ve had extra time to refine some options. Just because we can’t buy one because they can’t get what they need in volume…. Doesn’t mean they don’t have a handful on hand for tweaking.
 

atc250r

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
216
Reaction score
262
To be fair, all of this back and forth of what Theia will and will not detect seems like a giant time waste until we are shown a working prototype in use in the real world. How many cumulative hours have been spent debating something that may not ever make it to market. I’m obviously also guilty of spending time on this topic but I’ve started to curtail wasting anymore time discussing something until I see proof of progress in the development.
Then stay off the Radenso sub-forum completely. You just posted here. As long as you’re subscribed to the Theia email list, you’ll be the first to be notified of any new updates to Theia. Thank you.
 

Lars36

Banned
Banned User
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
1,157
Reaction score
3,449
Location
Ocala Fl
Then stay off the Radenso sub-forum completely. You just posted here. As long as you’re subscribed to the Theia email list, you’ll be the first to be notified of any new updates to Theia. Thank you.

Key word.....notified.
I was notified I had won the Nigeria lottery.
 

Token

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
674
Reaction score
2,409
Location
Mojave Desert, CA, USA
Exactly.
Its naïve to think that any RD manufacturer can produce a product with zero falses and still reliably alert you to all threats. Be wary of any manufacturer's (or fanboy) claims of zero falses. Its just not realistic. Especially given the huge numbers and types of K and Ka signal sources already out there.

People take from what they read what they want.

I don't claim to have read every word in these forums on the subject, frankly there is just too much sniping and back and forth to try and cover everything 100%. But, I see many things taken out of context or comments cherry picked to support an agenda.

I might have missed it, but I don't think I have ever seen Radenso claim zero false alerts and still 100% alert to all valid threats, other than statements that were probably meant to be talking about BSM falses. I have seen them repeatedly claim there can be zero BSM false alerts, and I can see, technically, how that is very possible with moderate to low risk. And I have seen people take the zero BSM claim out of context, and apply it to all falses. I have also seen Radenso say "zero false" that was probably meant to be referencing zero BSM falses, and people take and run with that statement as if it applies to everything. BSMs seem like low hanging fruit, and I am frankly surprised that upper end detectors still false as much as they do on these, but BSMs are not the only things you might false on, nor have I noticed Radenso claiming so.

I have seen them (Radenso) discuss a (probable) white list mode where, I assume, only positively identified threats are displayed / alerted. That one might actually be false free if the parameters are constrained enough, but my assumption is that some signals might be missed or at least have delayed alerts in such a setting. But I do not think I have seen Radenso make any claims on probability of detection in any mode.

What I see as very technically possible from them are layered modes. Just guesses below, but how I would start to approach it myself.
-Wide open, kind of the traditional RD approach, detect energy and show an alert that energy is present. It probably won't miss anything, but it will false just like a $25, 16 band, "Radar 360 detector".
- Zero BSM falses, very low risk of missing real threat signals (quite possibly zero risk of missed threats), probably no reduction in sensitivity or early detection. Bogeys and threats displayed.
- Black list mode, ignore positively identified false signals, alert / bogey for anything not positively identified, low risk of missing threat signals. To work the system would have to intentionally not alert to some signals until the signal can be positively IDed as a non threat. Might delay some weak CW mode signal alerts, even of real threats, until there is enough SNR to ID as a none threat.
- White list mode, alert to only positively identified threats. To work the system would have to intentionally not alert until the signal can be positively IDed as a threat. It is reasonable to think that a threat has to have some specific minimum SNR before this positive ID can be made, and that means (to my way of thinking, and for any signal that does not initially present with a strong signal) that the alert must be delayed a bit from maximum possible range.

Each layer gets more restrictive, with fewer falses. But each layer also increases the probability that a signal, real threat or otherwise, might be missed, or at least the alert delayed. If done right the possibility of actually missing a real threat signal can be very low, possibly statistically zero, but the process of IDing must take time, and more importantly, signal details that might not be apparent on a weak, but detectable, signal. But if the maximum unIDed range of the technology over all is better than the best detector on the market today, the IDed range could still be competitive with the best on the market today, and with ID.

T!
 

BMBSALES

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Messages
187
Reaction score
348
Location
Wrightsville Beach, NC
Then stay off the Radenso sub-forum completely. You just posted here. As long as you’re subscribed to the Theia email list, you’ll be the first to be notified of any new updates to Theia. Thank you.

let's all be kind ladies! a lot of moderators on here who forgot to attach their banners.

we can all debate this stuff constructively and help each other learn.
Post automatically merged:

We’ll see. I bet we can get pretty close. The problem is that you’re taking zero risk with your stance. If they hit it out of the park, at most it costs you a “good job” (and even then no one will care), and if they don’t quite get there you can strut around pretending you were right all along. It’s always easier to sit back in your armchair tell everyone else it can’t be done.
i see what you're saying here and i generally agree. in the investment world, that hasn't always worked out for me...often times the risk stance just for the sake of risk, leads to bust.

they might be onto something and only time will tell. but it's just as easy to armchair it and tell everyone it CAN be done successfully, real world, without having a clue if it can. i'm excited for the final, non-partial shootouts myself.
 
Last edited:

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
527
Reaction score
729
Your looking at it backwards.
A new version of what??? It’s not looking for different BSM emitters.
Perhaps not, but I see it possible that a new system might inadvertently mimic one enough to set off a false alarm. I cold even see an anti-detector engineer at an OEM deciding to slip something into his make's BSM signature that makes it look like a legit hit. And, should it happen, I'm not going to scream to the mountaintops demanding my money back and huge apologies over it like I suspect some folks here will, I'll just accept the very rare and occasional false alarm. If I can identify a false alarm, I'll just hope there's an easy way to send the data back to Radenso for investigation.

And if I'm entirely off base here, so be it. It's just not that big a deal.
 
Last edited:

G37X Jockey

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
4,054
Location
Behind my Steering Wheel
Perhaps not, but I see it possible that a new system might inadvertently mimic one enough to set off a false alarm. I cold even see an anti-detector engineer at an OEM deciding to slip something into his make's BSM signature that makes it look like a legit hit. And, should it happen, I'm not going to scream to the mountaintops demanding my money back and huge apologies over it like I suspect some folks here will, I'll just accept the very rare and occasional false alarm. If I can identify a false alarm, I'll just hope there's an easy way to send the data back to Radenso for investigation.

And if I'm entirely off base here, so be it. It's just not that big a deal.
Theia is suppose to be able to identify the type of transmitter, so even if your scenario occured we’ve been told that Theia will still be able to ID that tricky signal as a BSM. Of course until we get ahold of Theia we won’t know for sure.
 

Token

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
674
Reaction score
2,409
Location
Mojave Desert, CA, USA
Perhaps not, but I see it possible that a new system might inadvertently mimic one enough to set off a false alarm. I cold even see an anti-detector engineer at an OEM deciding to slip something into his make's BSM signature that makes it look like a legit hit. And, should it happen, I'm not going to scream to the mountaintops demanding my money back and huge apologies over it like I suspect some folks here will, I'll just accept the very rare and occasional false alarm. If I can identify a false alarm, I'll just hope there's an easy way to send the data back to Radenso for investigation.

First up, I probably tend to agree with you on what works for me personally, something that still falses very occasionally, making a false alert a rarity but still occasionally present, as long as it never misses a real threat, is a win for me compared to anything I have tried to date. The grand slam home run is something that never falses, but a good, solid, base hit is a detector that is significantly quieter than anything on the market.

But, as to the rest. The way police radars and BSM work there just is no BSM, and realistically no future BSM, that looks like a legit CW radar signal. It is two different goals with two different sets of requirements. The parameters of any radar transmission is driven by its use cases. What you want to do with it, what you want it to detect, how much information you want about the target, and how much detail you want or need in that information, requires you to do certain things with the radar signal.

Realistically, police speed radars are almost always (more on that in a minute) unmodulated CW signals. Unmodulated (or at least no intentional modulation) CW signals are very good at determining radial velocity, the relative speed of the target towards or away from the source. They are very bad at determining any other feature or parameter of the target.

A BSM that was a CW signal would be good at telling you "something is coming towards you, fast", but would not tell you where or how far away it was. That could have been a sales point 25 years ago, but today consumers expect much more out of a BSM. Where is the object (in my blind spot, passing behind me in a parking lot, etc), how far away is it (possibly becoming a more urgent sound if it gets closer), will we intercept at some point (emergency braking or collision warning, etc). To determine any of those things you must put intentional modulation on the signal.

In a detector, if you are able to detect that modulation that becomes a near automatic indicator that the signal is not a police speed radar gun.

So, about the "almost always unmodulated CW" statement I made above. There are a few intentionally modulated signals that are valid threats. MRCD and MRCT come to mind, but there may be others. I don't have a complete understanding of the depth of this kind of threat, but I know the numbers of different models is small.

Fortunately, if you are looking at each signal with enough detail to identify intentional modulation, required to 100% ignore the BSM signals, you are also looking at each signal with enough detail to ID the few modulated threats. Because the police radars have different goals than the BSMs, even when the police radars use similar, or identical, modulation techniques, they use different specific parameters. Best engineering practices, and each type of signals performance goals, drive the BSMs and valid police modulated threats away from each other (in regards to specifics).

As long as the number of different potential valid modulated police threats remains small I see the probability that a BSM and a real threat sharing parameters as very, very, small. I might not say zero chance of that ever happening, but it will surprise me if it does.

And there is the push for vehicles to move to other bands, anyway. Meaning more and more new vehicles will not be in a police radar band, but the detector still has to deal with the old/existing issues.

That is my take on it, anyway. And there is an important take away to remember, nothing I mention above requires the "IA" functionality of Theia. Everything I have discussed above, discrimination of CW signals from BSMs and police modulated signals from BSMs, can be done using traditional ID and detection techniques. Even if Radenso does not deliver on the IA functionality (and that is not a suggestion that I think they will fail) and ability to ID the specific radar gun they can achieve everything I have mentioned above. Of course, then the problem is not BSMs, but CW signals that are in the threat bands, things like door openers and such.

T!
 
Last edited:

Lars36

Banned
Banned User
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
1,157
Reaction score
3,449
Location
Ocala Fl
I have no words.
“Anti-detector Engineer at an OEM”

Really??

This is getting ridiculous. You guys figure it out.
Choo Choo Charlie was an Engineer, maybe he could slip in some good & plenty 😉 🤔
5527255 (1).jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jcp
Status
Not open for further replies.

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
99,014
Messages
1,503,889
Members
25,130
Latest member
Gdubz
Top